Gender&Identity.

In our culture there is a lot of confusion on gender and identity. In reference to the difference of a writer and writing, I belive that is something that can be mixed up often, even though I am now currently writing it does not make me a writer. Even though, I am a journalism major and would consider myself a writer, many people who are not pursuing writing careers would not be considered writers. Now the quote that Winterson said, "I am a writer who happens to love women. I am not a lesbian who happens to write." I loved this quote. I love anything to do with women, I love the study of women throughout history and the impacts they have made on society. I love the long way women have traveled from where we used to be, but i'm interested in women non-sexually, and people like me who love the study of women in general can be confused for lesbians or bi-sexual/curious, which is defiently not the case.

Women writers, like Winterson i'm sure would be confused as lesbians as well. It's human nature to read books like Written on the body and have you're own thoughts on what gender the narrator is. Me personally, I believe the narrator is a woman. I'm not trying to stereotype males at all, but from personal experience and being an outsider looking in on some situations, if a male has many sexual partners, he is not going to fall in love and have heartbreak like the narrator did. The narrator was not a believer in love, the first few pages could tell you that. He/she fell in
"love" with almost every female he/she had sex with (before Louise) and was heartbroken due to the fact that they always left the narrator for their husband. Females are more of seen as the "clingy" type, who fall for men who are just looking for a one night stand, just like the narrator. Yet I also thought, how many married women are really looking for affairs with other women? Does this go back to the whole lesbian or just loving women discussion? Say if the narrator really was female and the sexual partners she had were married to males, the women always returned to their husband. It could be that the wives were not lesbians, they just appreciated women and had an affair, but always returned back to their sex of choice, males.

If the narrator was a male, it would be different. I believe that if a married woman was to have an affair with another man, it would be because they see something in this man that they don't in their own husband, and they are more prone to leave their husband to their new lover. Yet for a married woman to have an affair with another woman, it would be more towards to experience something different, but in the end, they would go back to their regular lifestlye. It's something to think about when reading books like Winterson's. I do belive though that appreciating women and actually being a lesbian and/or gay are two completely different things, and maybe that's what Winterson what trying to prove in her novel without really knowing it...

The Hours

The Hours I believe is a celebration of life, suicide is mentioned a few times throughout the novel which is a very touchy subject, especially in our society. I think of it as a celebration of life because Laura Brown does not kill herself even though it is very clear that she is not happy with her life. Laura felt like she wasn’t an individual anymore, she was now known as her husband’s wife, something that she did not want to be known as. She feels irritated by her husband and her son, she feels irritated that she must have sex with him and make him breakfast in the morning. One of the reasons that she stays with him, is mostly due to the war. Her husband was in the war and when he came out of it, he chose Laura as the woman that he wanted to be with. I'm sure many people are struggling from thoughts of suicide, and to over-come it is a very good and relieving thing. In the end, Laura did not commit suicide; she had her books as an escape, and she ends up leaving her husband and her son, to escape away from the life that she so hated. Unfortunately, Virginia Woolf did commit suicide but clearly, dying was the only thing that could make her truly happy. Throughout her story, it was clear that Virginia was a little bit strange, she avoids things such as looking in the mirror to avoid her shadow, or to avoid speaking to people who will put her in a bad mood, as well as eating, all she wanted to do was write.

Though Virginia committed suicide, she stopped Laura Brown from committing suicide. With the end of one life, saves another. Her writing was so wonderful and beautiful that Laura used her writings to get away from the world that she hated and into another that she loved. Without Virginia’s book, I’m sure that Laura Brown would of committed suicide as well. Yet Laura had a small breaking point in which she realized that she did not want to be crazy like Virginia Woolf. Clarissa Vaughan didn’t have thoughts of suicide, but she witnessed suicide from her best friend, Richard. Throughout the novel Clarissa would see things that would remind her of her and Richard when they were young and lovers. Sadly, Richard is dying from AIDS and she is now living a life with another woman. She contemplates whether or not she chose the right life and wonders what her life would have been like if she was to be with Richard instead of Sally. Overall the book is fantastic and a great way to show how that sometimes life can be difficult and will get you down, but there’s always a way to bring your life back up, whether it be from a book written by a person who feels the same way or not, there is always a way to save a life.

Biblical References to Homosexuality

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as he would a woman, both of them have created an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
In the bible, it states that man and woman are to be together and it forbids homosexuality for the reason that God put man and woman on the earth together for a purpose, the purpose being to create life. Many people now a day’s still believe in this theory that man and woman are to be together. Churches still preach it and kids are still brought up to learn it. The majority of our society is Christians, if Christians are still preaching that homosexuality is wrong, and then the idea of homosexuality is still going to be thought of as wrong to the majority of the people in the world. In the bible it also states that god created sex for reproduction as well as pleasure, the pleasure was mostly for the man, it couldn't of really of done anything for a woman.

In my opinion, I think it's kind of ridiculous that the majority of our country is living by what a book says. I don't believe that there is someone out there that can tell a person what is right or what is wrong, or a book nevertheless. I think it's wrong that the bible states in writing that if you are a homosexual then you have created an abomination and will be punished of it. In Romans 24:27 it states that if you are a homosexual then you will never be let into heaven unless you beg God to forgive you of your sins, not doing so means you have to much pride, which is the deadliest of the seven deadly sins.

I don't think that Christianity itself is wrong, I think some of the thing that they preach may be wrong, but I have nothing against the religion. Though Christianity is the largest religion practiced in the United States, statistics show that soon Muslim will be the largest religion practiced, besides that, many new religions are developing as we speak. Including Atheism, Agnostic, as well as Scientology which big movies stars as starting to practice including Tom Cruise and Kirstie Alley. New religions bring new practices and new things to preach, so the same stories or ideas won’t be taught across the country, now parents have a choice on how they would want to bring their children up. They can either have them not believe in God, which would be Atheism, or be neutral on the religion debate, which would consider them Agnostic. Either way, my stand on Christianity stays, I believe it’s wrong to teach people not to be homosexual and threaten that if you are a homosexual that there is a chance that you will go to hell. I am very glad that new religions are starting to form, giving people a chance to actually practice a religion in which they think is right, instead of a religion that tells them what is right.

Gender Roles are Still Stricted..

I feel like the role of women can go different ways. Some people think the role to be the role of the housewife. To cook, clean, do laundry, and take care of the kids. These women are usually not outspoken, more timid and shy. These women listen and tend to their husband. Yet other roles of women (lately) are that women are loud and obnoxious. They like to argue and complain. They stand up for themselves and don't take disrespect. So in a way, gender roles for women have changed, but not in a good way.

I can see some restrictions for women, but not really too much. Women are now allowed to work, to buy homes, cars, or go to school. Women these days, (i've heard) are actually now making more than men do. Women can do anything a man can do, non-physically. Since the drawing, everything has changed for women. Like in my first paragraph, women are not in the little bubble like they used to be. The drawing was trying to say what would happen to women if they behaved outside of that bubble. That they would become poor and have to sell their bodies to make money. Now I feel like women don't really have a "role." Sure the media plays on the housewife making food for her kids and greeting her husband as he comes home from work but that's just TV, that's just the media trying to sell products..that's not real life. Excluding older people who have lived in the era in which women WERE to be the housewife, it really doesn't seem like anyone expects women to play that role. The role is now shared...with men.

The idea of women doing everything for men, and taking care of the house, and kids is an idea that is from an older era. The older people who now live in this generation still believe in this because they've grown up to live like that. Now in this generation, men are now sharing the responsibilities with their wife and teaching their children how to do laundry or do the dishes, regardless whether the child be male or female. Especially due to the fact that children learn from what they observe, seeing their father do the dishes would depict to the child that it is okay for males to do dishes, therefore that child grows up not thinking that women have "roles".

The only thing that can even possibly have males still think of these "roles" is of course, other males. Not all kids are brought up in the way that I just described and still thinks of boys that can play women's roles as "gay" or any word of that sort, and it is still extremely hurtful to see words like that thrown around or for kids to be taunted, but the upside is that we are progressing slowly but surely and hopefully one day all kids will grow up to be open-minded and these "gender roles" will no longer be a topic up for discussion.

Jane Eyre

In the book Jane Eyre there are lots of situations in which gender roles are challenged. Back when the book was written, Men were the superiority and women did as they were told. One of the most significant scenes that challenged gender roles in Jane Eyre is in the beginning when Jane stood up for herself against her cousin John. John was always abusing Jane, and it was a normal thing back then, and Jane, being a woman, was to not of done anything about it. One day though when John was taunting her again, Jane fought back for once, and of course John ran to his aunt to tell on her. Jane was then sentenced to the "red room" and while she was getting carried into the room, she resisted the whole way. Once Jane was in the red room she realized she was in the room in which her uncle died. She then imagined she saw the ghost of her uncle, causing her to make a temper tantrum. Jane having the temper tantrum i believe would of challenged gender roles back then, but not today. In our current generation, most people believe that women have "temper tantrums" all the time, yet back then, I believe that women were just to do as they were told with no resistance.

Before Jane left to go to Lowood school, she told her aunt what she really thought of her, she told her how wicked and evil it was of her to lock her in the red room and of how she knew that John was abusing her yet she never did anything about it. Already in the first few chapters, Jane was challenging her gender role. It gave the reader a sense of what kind of person Jane was, which I believe carries on throughout the novel. It was known back then that it was okay for men to hit women, women usually knew their place and knew that they could not do anything about it. Jane pushing John Reed was a very brave and courageous thing to do, especially for a 10 year old girl. When Jane told her aunt what she truly thought about her, it was also very brave as well. Even now in the generation that we currently are living in, it is still very hard for some people to stand up for themselves and tell someone how they feel, or to tell them about how wrong they have treated them (more relevant to kids and parents).

So knowing how difficult it would be to be place into situations in which Jane experienced and actually doing something about it, Jane most definitely challenged her gender roles against males and authority. This book is a good insight into how women were treated back then and hopefully made an impact for women to know their rights and to stand up for themselves and what they believe in for situations that happened in the book, i'm sure is still happening today.